but an attacker isn't obliged to take on all the open ports, he could work with some of them - the ones that may seem the most interesting to him

Ok, back to this then:

If everything reports open then what ports do you focus on first?

I don't see an issue here. An attacker would be overwhemed with choise and excitement so that he wouldn't be able to decide which port to choose first, get stuck for a several months unable to decide? He'd toss a coin then.

My ports are always open for you, my son. And doors, and windows.

You can’t pretend-close it and still have that service work.

indeed, a service on a port would no longer properly work. However, pretending that an open port is closed is possible the same way when pretending that's open

how so?

it has nothing to do with it. Welcome to the real English

It's got CLI too - alright. But is it any de-facto, mature, well-known, widely used? What gurantees that it's as secure as openssl or gpg? It might have plenty of bugs and vulnerabilies.

1. backups, non-incremental ones
2. prevent others from viewing information that may be sensitive
3. encrypted files and directories will then be copied over to external drives and third-party servers

I don't want to encypt them in-place because I'll be uploading them onto a server, copying them on an external drive.

that's why you should be logged out of Google and also delete your cookies periodically :) To reset the memory of Google

. Some of them could also be implemented with native messaging.

Some? Or all?

uBlockOrigin would still loose some of its features and capabilities nonetheless, even if a sub-set of them could be implemented in other ways. Not?

Not in the direct war - correct. But in a proxy one. But even in it we haven't been to even match Russia's weapon production and which we have also admitted. By the margin of 3-7 times.

But that's about weapons. What about economy? Geopolitics? No major blow-ups for Russia, if not the opposite, either.